SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 + Intel Arc A550M

Get a comprehensive performance analysis of your gaming rig with detailed benchmarks, bottleneck detection, and upgrade recommendations

97 / 100
ULTIMATE READY

Apex Performer

Top 3% of systems. Capable of 4K Ultra gaming and advanced rendering.

4K 60+ FPSVR ReadyRay Tracing

System Balance Analysis

CPU vs GPU performance ratio
Well Balanced
CPU
97%
VS
GPU
96%
PROCESSOR

AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395

77,740 Benchmark Score
Top 3% Market Ranking
View Full Specs →
GRAPHICS CARD

Intel Arc A550M

49,737 Benchmark Score
Top 4% Market Ranking
View Full Specs →

Market Position

How your build compares to others
Budget
0-30
Mid-Range
30-60
High-End
60-85
Enthusiast
85-100
Your Build

Game Performance Benchmarks

Real-world 4K FPS in popular titles
View All Games →

Performance Insights

Tips to maximize your system

Optimal Performance

Your system is in the top tier. You can run any modern game at maximum settings.

4K Gaming Ready

Consider a 4K 144Hz monitor to fully utilize your hardware capabilities.

Compatible Games See what you can play Compare CPUs Find upgrades Compare GPUs Find upgrades

Performance Tiers Explained

90-100

Ultimate

4K Ultra gaming, VR ready, ray tracing enabled, professional workloads

4K 60+ FPS VR Ready
70-89

High-End

1440p Ultra or 4K High settings, excellent for modern AAA titles

1440p Ultra 4K High
50-69

Mid-Range

1080p Ultra or 1440p Medium, great value for most gamers

1080p Ultra 1440p Med
30-49

Entry Level

1080p Medium settings, suitable for eSports and older titles

1080p Med eSports
0-29

Legacy

Basic gaming, older titles, consider upgrading for modern games

720p-1080p Low Older Games

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 paired with the Intel Arc A550M is an unusual combination: a 2025 mobile flagship processor meeting an end-of-life discrete mobile GPU. The benchmark database places this laptop-class pairing at a combined percentile of 91, meaning it outranks the large majority of recorded configurations, though the two components sit at very different points of the performance spectrum. The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 occupies the 95th percentile among all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 77740, while the Arc A550M sits at the 86th percentile among GPUs with an average of 49737. No measured frame-rate data exists in the database for this exact pairing, so every FPS statement below is an estimate derived from the benchmark scores rather than direct measurement — a caveat that applies throughout this page.

Balance and Bottleneck

The data points to the GPU as the limiting component in graphically demanding workloads, and the margin is not subtle. With the CPU at the 95th percentile and the GPU at the 86th, there is a nine-point percentile gap between the two, and the balance question is really about how much CPU headroom goes unused in games. A Ryzen AI Max+ 395 scoring 35314 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 20992 in Geekbench multi-core is far more CPU than most rendering engines can saturate at the settings a 60 W discrete GPU can drive. In practical terms, the processor will spend long stretches waiting on the Arc A550M's 2048 shading units and 8 GB of GDDR6.

The bottleneck inverts for compute and creation workloads. The CPU's PassMark multithread score of 54934 and physics score of 3481 indicate strong throughput for simulation, compilation, and batch processing, while the GPU's compute-oriented results — 49894 in Geekbench OpenCL and 49580 in Geekbench Vulkan — are mid-tier numbers that place it within a fraction of a percent of cards like the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti in average score terms, though that aggregate masks the specific FP32 throughput of 8.397 TFLOPS, which is modest for heavy offline rendering. The interplay is straightforward: CPU-bound tasks scale beautifully, GPU-bound tasks hit the A550M's ceiling first.

Memory is worth flagging as an unusual strength on one side of the platform. The CPU's quad-channel LPDDR5X subsystem delivers 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth — actually more than the discrete GPU's 224.0 GB/s of GDDR6 bandwidth. That means CPU-side workloads that stream large datasets, and the integrated Radeon 8060S graphics when it is used, have access to unusually wide memory pipes for a mobile platform. The 64 MB of shared L3 cache further cushions data-hungry multi-threaded work.

GPU Analysis

The Intel Arc A550M is an Alchemist-generation Xe-HPG part built on TSMC's 6 nm process, with 21700 million transistors packed into a 406 mm² die at a density of 53.4M transistors per square millimeter. It carries 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, 64 render output units, and 16 ray-tracing cores. Clocks run from a 900 MHz base to a 2050 MHz boost, with memory clocked at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) across a 128-bit bus feeding 8 GB of GDDR6.

What do those numbers mean for rendering? The pixel fill rate of 131.2 GPixel/s and texture fill rate of 262.4 GTexel/s define the card's throughput ceiling for rasterization, and the FP32 figure of 8.397 TFLOPS (with FP16 at 16.79 TFLOPS in a 2:1 ratio) defines its general compute ceiling. These are mainstream figures: adequate for 1080p-class gaming and light GPU compute, but the 16 RT cores mean hardware ray tracing is present yet not abundant, so path-traced or heavily RT-weighted scenes will pull the frame estimate down sharply. DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6 support means modern API features are covered on paper.

The benchmark picture is the interesting part. The A550M's average score of 49737 lands it within 0.4 percent of the RTX 5070 Ti's listed average, half a percent of the Radeon RX Vega 64, 2.4 percent behind the RX 6900 XT, and 2.6 percent ahead of the RX 6800 XT in the database's aggregate scoring. Those deltas are tight, which indicates the composite metric treats this GPU as closely comparable to those rivals in the specific benchmark suite recorded here. The 8 GB VRAM buffer is the harder constraint for rendering work: modern texture-heavy scenes at higher resolutions will exhaust 8 GB before the shader throughput becomes the primary limiter. For viewport work and moderate-resolution rendering, the card is serviceable; for large scenes, it is the first wall the build hits.

Benchmark Performance

Walking through the CPU numbers first. In Cinebench R23, the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 posts 35314 multi-core and 2044 single-core; in the older R15 test, 5463 multi-core and 316 single-core. Geekbench yields 20992 multi-core and 2464 single-core. PassMark shows 54934 multithread, 4147 single-thread, 3481 physics, 200665 integer math, 128682 floating point math, 690650 data compression, 35455 data encryption, 76177 string sorting, 56346 extended instructions, and 303 for prime number search. The average benchmark score of 77740 places it at the 95th percentile of all CPUs.

Against its nearest rivals, the margins are remarkably narrow. The Threadripper PRO 9945WX averages 76513, putting the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 just 1.6 percent ahead; the EPYC Embedded 8224P averages 76492, again 1.6 percent behind this chip; the Core i9-14900K averages 79097, leaving the AMD part 1.7 percent behind; and the Ryzen 9 8945HX averages 76212, 2 percent behind. In other words, this 55 W mobile processor trades blows with a desktop flagship and workstation-class silicon in the composite metric — that is the single most striking result in the pack.

On the GPU side, the two recorded Geekbench results — 49894 OpenCL and 49580 Vulkan — are nearly identical, which suggests consistent cross-API performance rather than a driver skew toward one API. The average of 49737 and the 86th percentile placement, with rival deltas all within 2.6 percent, describe a mid-to-upper GPU tier. Combined, the build sits at the 91st percentile of all recorded pairings: a strongly CPU-led configuration where the GPU is the softer half.

Who Should Build It

The intended audience follows directly from the asymmetry. High-refresh 1080p gamers benefit most: the GPU's fill rates and bandwidth support high-frame-rate play at mainstream settings, while the CPU's 95th-percentile standing guarantees that simulation, AI logic, and draw-call submission will never be the limiter. Content creators working in 1080p or light 1440p timelines are well served — the 35314 R23 multi-core score and 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth accelerate timeline scrubbing, encoding, and effects preview, and 8 GB of VRAM covers standard editing workloads.

Developers are arguably the best fit of all. A PassMark multithread score of 54934 and a single-thread score of 4147 mean fast compilation of both parallel and latency-sensitive code paths, and the quad-channel memory with ECC support (the CPU supports ECC) adds a data-integrity layer that matters for long-running build servers and test farms on a workstation laptop. Students get a single machine that handles coursework, moderate gaming, and heavier final-year projects alike. Small businesses deploying engineering or analysis workstations will appreciate the 16 cores, 32 threads, and ECC-capable platform in a laptop form factor. What this build is not: a 4K-max-settings gaming rig or a heavy ray-tracing box. The GPU percentile caps those ambitions.

Usage Scenarios

High-refresh gaming. With no measured FPS data in the database for this pairing, frame rates must be estimated from the scores. The GPU's 86th-percentile standing and the rival deltas suggest competent ultra-setting 1080p play, with the 95th-percentile CPU removing any processor-side frame ceiling. Estimate: high-refresh 1080p is realistic; 1440p ultra settings will lean on upscaling in demanding titles.

Streaming. Encoding a stream while gaming is exactly where spare CPU cores pay off. Sixteen cores and thirty-two threads, with a PassMark multithread score of 54934, absorb x264-class encoding loads without stealing cycles from the game — the GPU remains the only constraint on the game's own frame rate.

Video editing. The 256.0 GB/s quad-channel memory bandwidth is a genuine asset for editing large footage libraries, and the 20992 Geekbench multi-core score drives exports and effects renders. The 8 GB VRAM buffer handles standard GPU-accelerated effects but will constrain very high-resolution source media.

3D rendering. The CPU's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 35314 indicates fast CPU-based rendering — this chip competes within 1.6 percent of a Threadripper PRO in the composite metric. GPU rendering leans on 8.397 TFLOPS FP32 and 16 RT cores, which is enough for viewport work and previews, modest for final-frame ray-traced output.

Software development. Single-thread strength (2044 R23, 2464 Geekbench, 4147 PassMark) keeps interactive tooling responsive, while multi-core throughput parallelizes builds. The 64 MB shared L3 cache helps large working sets, and ECC support is a rare mobile-platform bonus for reliability-sensitive work.

Student and office work. For everyday productivity the pairing is frankly overqualified — but that headroom means the machine stays responsive under heavy multitasking, virtualization for coursework, and years of accumulated software load. The 4 nm Strix Halo design keeps all of this inside a 55 W envelope.

FAQ

Q: Is this build balanced for gaming?

A: No. The CPU sits at the 95th percentile and the GPU at the 86th, a nine-point gap. The processor has substantial unused headroom in graphically demanding games; the Arc A550M is the limiting component.

Q: Are the frame rates on this page measured?

A: No. The database contains no measured FPS entries for this exact CPU+GPU pairing, so all frame-rate discussion is estimated from the benchmark scores (CPU average 77740, GPU average 49737, combined percentile 91).

Q: How does the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 compare to desktop chips?

A: Its composite average of 77740 is within 1.7 percent of the Intel Core i9-14900K (79097), and it is 1.6 percent ahead of both the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX (76513) and the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P (76492).

Q: Is 8 GB of VRAM enough?

A: For 1080p gaming and standard content-creation workloads, yes. For high-resolution texture-heavy scenes and heavy ray tracing, 8 GB of GDDR6 over a 128-bit bus (224.0 GB/s) becomes the first constraint.

Q: Does this platform support ECC memory?

A: Yes — the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 supports ECC on its quad-channel LPDDR5X subsystem, which is notable for a mobile part and relevant for workstation use.

Q: Can the Arc A550M handle ray tracing?

A: It has 16 dedicated ray-tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support, so hardware RT is available, but the core count is modest and RT-heavy scenes will reduce the estimated frame rates meaningfully.

Q: What APIs does the GPU support?

A: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6 — full modern API coverage, with near-identical Geekbench scores across OpenCL (49894) and Vulkan (49580) indicating consistent cross-API behavior.

CPU Analysis

The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is a Zen 5 design, codenamed Strix Halo, manufactured on TSMC's 4 nm node across two dies of 70.6 mm² each. It runs 16 cores and 32 threads from a 3.00 GHz base clock to a 5.10 GHz boost, inside a 55 W TDP. The cache hierarchy is deep: 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 64 MB of L3 — that last figure is substantial for mobile silicon and is a major reason multi-threaded scores hold up so well.

What the benchmark scores translate to in real workloads: a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2044 and Geekbench single-core of 2464 mean snappy per-task responsiveness — application launches, browser tabs, IDE indexing, and single-threaded game logic all run at upper-tier speed. The multi-core figures — 35314 in R23, 20992 in Geekbench, 54934 in PassMark multithread — describe a chip that chews through parallel workloads: code compilation, video encoding, physics simulation (PassMark physics of 3481), and batch data processing (690650 in data compression, 35455 in encryption). The 95th-percentile placement confirms it: this is workstation throughput in a mobile envelope, trading composite blows with the i9-14900K and workstation Threadripper silicon as noted above. The integrated Radeon 8060S graphics on the same package add a fallback display path when the discrete GPU is bypassed. The multiplier is locked, consistent with a soldered mobile platform on Socket FP11.

Build Overview

This is a laptop-class build: a mobile flagship processor from the Ryzen AI Max family (Zen 5, Strix Halo) paired with a discrete mobile GPU from Intel's Alchemist generation. The pairing is unconventional in two respects. First, the CPU already integrates Radeon 8060S graphics, so the Arc A550M functions as a discrete supplement with its own dedicated 8 GB of GDDR6. Second, the GPU is listed as end-of-life, while the CPU is an active part released in early January 2025 — a mixed-lifecycle combination that a buyer should understand going in.

Tier-wise, the data is unambiguous. Combined percentile: 91. CPU percentile: 95. GPU percentile: 86. In database terms this is a high-end overall configuration led by an elite processor, with a GPU tier that the rival table (deltas of 0.4 to 2.6 percent against the RTX 5070 Ti, RX Vega 64, RX 6900 XT, and RX 6800 XT on the composite average) places firmly in the upper-middle band. It is best described as a creator-and-developer laptop with competent mainstream gaming ability, rather than a gaming-first machine.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The platform facts constrain upgrade expectations heavily. The CPU uses AMD Socket FP11 — a mobile, soldered socket — with a locked multiplier, so processor upgrades are effectively off the table; this is the chip the machine keeps. Memory support is LPDDR5X on a quad-channel bus at 256.0 GB/s, and since LPDDR5X is typically integrated into the platform design, memory expansion depends entirely on how the specific laptop was configured rather than on user-replaceable DIMMs. ECC support is present on the CPU side.

PCIe is Gen 4 with 16 CPU lanes — enough for the Arc A550M, which connects over PCIe 4.0 x16, though in a laptop the wiring is fixed by the manufacturer. Power is bounded by the components' envelopes: a 55 W CPU TDP and a 60 W GPU TDP, with the GPU being an IGP-slot part carrying no separate power connectors — the laptop's internal power delivery handles everything, and no external PSU recommendation exists in the data for this configuration.

A sensible next upgrade is therefore external rather than internal: for more GPU throughput, an external enclosure over the available PCIe interface is the realistic route, since the 95th-percentile CPU has ample headroom to feed a faster GPU. Within the chassis itself, the practical levers are maximizing installed LPDDR5X capacity (which the quad-channel bus rewards with bandwidth scaling) and relying on the integrated Radeon 8060S as a comparison point for any discrete-GPU decision. This is a closed platform; plan the purchase around the configuration as shipped.

Gaming Performance

To restate the caveat clearly: the benchmark database contains no measured FPS rows for this exact CPU+GPU combination, and the measured-data flag for this page is false. Every figure and frame-rate characterization below is an estimate derived from the benchmark scores — the GPU's average of 49737, its 86th-percentile placement, and the rival deltas — not from direct testing.

At 1080p with ultra settings, the estimate is favorable. The Arc A550M's 131.2 GPixel/s pixel rate, 262.4 GTexel/s texture rate, and 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth are consistent with high-refresh play at that resolution in mainstream titles, and the near-identical OpenCL and Vulkan Geekbench results (49894 and 49580) suggest stable performance regardless of API. The 95th-percentile CPU guarantees that frame pacing and simulation-heavy scenes — large open worlds, strategy titles with many units — are never processor-limited: a PassMark physics score of 3481 and single-thread score of 4147 cover the latency-sensitive side of gaming entirely.

At 1440p, expectations should be tempered: 8 GB of VRAM over a 128-bit bus becomes the first constraint in texture-heavy titles, and ultra-settings play will increasingly depend on upscaling, which the DirectX 12 Ultimate support makes available at the API level. At 4K ultra, the estimate is that this pairing is out of its depth for demanding titles — the FP32 throughput and VRAM buffer are the binding limits, not the CPU, which would remain with headroom to spare. Ray tracing follows the same gradient: 16 RT cores provide the capability, but RT-heavy presets at any resolution will cut the estimated frame rates noticeably versus rasterized rendering. Competitive players targeting high refresh rates at 1080p with reduced settings will find the CPU side entirely cooperative and the GPU side capable; players chasing maximum-fidelity 4K should read this build's 91st combined percentile as a CPU-led result rather than a gaming verdict.